Exercise 1.1: Societal Problem and Societal Categories
Your Total Score: (Maximum: 10 points)
A. Define the term “societal problem” by quoting a full sentence directly from the Maxwell Manual.
(2 points)
Part A score:
·Place quote:“A societal problem is when some aspects of our society, or, as we call it, “a societal condition,” fails to meet one or more of the six goals."
(Coplin 2007: p. 4)
B. Choose one of the following societal categories: Crime, Education, Environment, Health, Housing, Jobs and Economic Development, or Poverty. Find, reference, and attach the first page of a newspaper article from a print or electronic source that discusses some aspect of the societal category. Attach the first page of the article behind the entire 1.1 exercise. In a paragraph of no more than 200 words, explain your interest in the societal category and quote one full and relevant sentence from the article. (8 points)
Part B score: _
Write a paragraph of no more than 200 words explaining why you are interested in that societal category (including newspaper article quote). Start your answer on the next line.
On New York School Tests, Warning Signs Ignored
Ruby Washington/The New York Times A student is tested in Brooklyn. Experts had warned that the tests had become too easy.
When New York State made its standardized English and math tests tougher to pass this year, causing proficiency rates to plummet, it said it was relying on a new analysis showing that the tests had become too easy and that score inflation was rampant. But evidence had been mounting for some time that the state’s tests, which have formed the basis of almost every school reform effort of the past decade, had serious flaws. The fast rise and even faster fall of New York’s passing rates resulted from the effect of policies, decisions and missed red flags that stretched back more than 10 years and were laid out in correspondence and in interviews with city and state education officials, administrators and testing experts. The process involved direct warnings from experts that went unheeded by the state, and a city administration that trumpeted gains in student performance despite its own reservations about how reliably the test gauged future student success. It involved the state’s decision to create short, predictable exams and to release them publicly soon after they were given, making coaching easy and depriving test creators of a key tool: the ability to insert in each test questions for future exams. Next year, for the first time, the tests will not be released publicly. It involved a national push for numbers-based accountability, begun under President George W. Bush and reinforced by President Obama. And it involved a mayor’s full embrace of testing as he sought to make his mark on the city, and then to get re-elected. “They just kept upping the stakes with the scores, putting more pressure on the schools but not really looking at what it all means,” said Pedro Noguera, an education professor at New York University who has worked with the city’s Department of Education to help improve struggling schools. New York has been a national model for how to carry out education reform, so its sudden decline in passing rates may be seen as a cautionary tale. The turnaround has also been a blow to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and his chancellor, Joel I. Klein, who despite warnings that a laserlike focus on raising scores could make them less and less reliable, lashed almost every aspect of its school system to them. Schools were graded on how much their scores rose and threatened with being closed if they did not. The scores dictated which students were promoted or left back, and which teachers and principals would receive bonuses. Even now, the city believes that the way it uses the tests is valid. The mayor and the chancellor have forcefully defended their students’ performance, noting that even after the changes this year, student scores are still better than they were in 2002. They have argued that their students’ progress is more important than the change in the passing rate, and that years of gains cannot be washed away because of a decision in Albany to require more correct answers from every student this year. The test scores were even used for a new purpose this year: to help determine which teachers should receive tenure. “This mayor uses data and metrics to determine whether policies are failing or succeeding,” said Howard Wolfson, the deputy mayor for government affairs and communications. He also helped run Mr. Bloomberg’s re-election campaign in 2009, using the city’s historic rise in test scores to make the case for a third term. “We believe that testing is a key factor for determining the success of schools and teachers.” “Under any standard you look at,” he added, “we have improved the schools.” But given all the flaws of the test, said Prof. Howard T. Everson of the City University of New York’s Center for Advanced Study in Education, it is hard to tell what those rising scores really meant. “Teachers began to know what was going to be on the tests,” said Professor Everson, who was a member of a state testing advisory panel and who warned the state in 2008 that it might have a problem with score inflation. “Then you have to wonder, and folks like me wonder, is that real learning or not?” New Generation of Tests The problems that plagued New York’s standardized tests can be traced to the origin of the exams. In 1996, New York set about creating tests for fourth and eighth graders as a way to measure whether schools were doing their jobs. A precursor to the widespread testing brought about by Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law, the tests replaced more basic exams that had been given in the same grades, which simply determined whether students needed remedial instruction. (The city had also given its own tests for many years.) Teachers pushed back, saying they could gauge their students’ performance better than any mass-produced tests could. “There was a lot of resistance from throughout the education community to having the tests,” said Alan Ray, who was the chief spokesman for the State Education Department in the 1990s and in 2000, and retired this year after overseeing data for the office. But education officials in New York, and many other states, were coming to the conclusion that some measurement system, no matter how limited, was necessary.
David Goldman for The New York Times
Randi Weingarten, second from left, president of the teachers’ union; Chancellor Joel I. Klein, center; and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg at a news conference in 2009 discussing improved math results.
Exercise 1.2: Identifying Public Policy
Your Total Score: (Maximum: 20 points)
A. Define the term “public policy” by quoting directly from the Maxwell Manual.
(2 points)
Part A score: _
o Place quote: "A public policy is an actual or proposed government action intended to deal with a given societal problem." (Coplin 2007:p.6)
B. Describe and reference (using any print or electronic newspaper) a legislative, administrative, and judicial action that relates to some aspect of your societal category. Attach the first page of each article(s) used. Articles may be used more than once at any point during this module. If an article is used more than once, place it behind the entire exercise where it is first used. (9 points)
Part B score:
Describe and reference a legislative action:
Background Information: The No Child Left Behind Act
"Does the No Child Left Behind Act 'do' anything for gifted students?" That is a question we hear quite often. The answer is not a simple "yes" or "no." Although the major provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) do not address the learning needs of gifted and talented students, there are several provisions in NCLB of which gifted education advocates should be aware. First, it is important to understand that No Child Left Behind is the Bush Administration's catchy name/label for its original legislative proposal to overhaul the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was scheduled for reauthorization in 2001. ESEA is the umbrella law governing the federal government's involvement in K-12 education (note that another federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), governs K-12 education of children with disabilities). As with all legislative initiatives, the final version is a compromise between the White House and Congress. The final version of ESEA signed into law in January 2002 is still referred to as No Child Left Behind, even though it includes many provisions that were not included in the President's initial legislative proposal. One example is the Javits Act, the federal law that authorizes federal funds for research and grants to support programs and services for gifted and talented students.
**Second, although the federal legislative process, and resulting federal law is often arcane, it is helpful to understand generally how federal education law is organized on paper. Think of a filing cabinet. The top drawer is ESEA, the umbrella law for K-12 education.
**
|| filing cabinet ||
Within that drawer are files for a range of big-picture issues, labeled "Titles." (For example Title I governs programs for low-income students; Title II governs teacher preparation)
|| filing cabinet ||
Within each file are multi-page booklets that address individual programs and student needs, labeled "Parts."
|| filing cabinet ||
Within the booklets are sheets of paper, labeled "Sections."
The file drawer of ESEA is semi-permanent so that any legislative proposal related to K-12 education (but not related to children with disabilities) can be placed into an appropriate file within the drawer, no matter when it becomes law. The Javits program, which was not part of the original NCLB Act, was added to ESEA by the Congress and is now, on paper, located in Title V, Part D, sections 5461-5466 of ESEA.
Now, imagine the rest of the file drawers in our education filing cabinet, organized in a similar way, and are labeled IDEA (for children with disabilities), and HEA (Higher Education Act), for programs and services that are post-secondary. Of course, there are other filing cabinets for criminal justice programs, defense, environmental laws, transportation, health and human services, housing, agriculture and other federal laws.
Because of the way NCLB / ESEA is organized on paper, then, the provisions that mention gifted and talented students are scattered throughout. Below is a description of the provisions that address gifted students or gifted education as well as some comments on why advocates for gifted students might be interested in each.
We have also provided a specific citation to the place in the file drawer where they may be located in case you would like to locate the actual language in federal law. The page numbers provided after each description refers to a page number in the conference report, which is the final document that Congress actually passed and sent to the President for his signature. You may obtain a copy of the conference report (House Conference Report 107-334) through the Library of Congress.
The definition of gifted and talented in NCLB is as follows:
The term 'gifted and talented', when used with respect to students, children, or youth, means students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (Title IX, Part A, Section 9101(22))
(Page 544)
Title I Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged
Part A - Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs
Section 1111 - State Plans
States are required to explain the method used to define "annual yearly progress" and may use a host of academic indicators, including changes in the percentage of students in gifted and talented, advanced placement, and college preparatory programs. (Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vii)).
(Page 24)
The annual yearly progress (AYP) portion of the Act is the heart of the all-important accountability provisions. Advocates concerned about gifted children and gifted education should be asking about the criteria used for AYP in their state plan, and, to the extent that districts monitor g/t or AP data, should be asking their school districts about that too.
Title II Preparing, Training & Recruiting High Quality Teachers & Principals
Section 2122: Local application and needs assessment
An LEA application for a sub-grant from the state must include an explanation of how the LEA will provide training to enable teachers to address the needs of students with different learning styles, particularly students with disabilities, with special learning needs (including students with gifts and talents).... (Section 2122(b)(9)(A))
(Page 210)
Advocates concerned about teacher training should ask LEAs about the applications submitted under this section, and what the LEA may/may not have included about the "special learning needs" of g/t students. Advocates might also recommend assistance and resources for teacher training.
Title V Promoting Informed Parental Choice and Innovative Programs
Part A - Innovative Programs
Subpart 3 - Local Innovative Education Programs (Note: this is the local block grant section of the Act)
Funds to LEAs shall be used for innovative assistance programs, which may include "programs to provide for the educational needs of gifted and talented children." (Section 5131(a)(7)).
(Page 363)
LEAs receive funds under this program based on their relative student population. In some cases, the amount an LEA receives is quite small. However, g/t advocates should make sure that their local LEAs are aware that these funds may be spent to support gifted education.
Part D - Fund for the Improvement of Education
Subpart 6 Gifted and Talented Education
Sections 5461-5466 is the Javits Act, which includes
- National Research Center on the Gifted & Talented
- National Demonstration Grants program
- Statewide Grants program
(Page 409)
This section is the Javits Act, which provides funds for research and demonstration grants, and since 2002, provides funds for statewide grants to support gifted education programs and services. Each year g/t advocates urge Congress to fund this program, which is funded at $11.25 million for fiscal year 2003.
Title VII Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education
Part A - Indian Education
Subpart 3 National Activities
Section 7134 is Gifted & Talented Indian Students
(Page 510)
Part B - Native Hawaiian Education
Section 7205(a)(3)(E) is Gifted and Talented Native Hawaiian Students
(Page 524)
The funds allocated under this section go to a special school for Native Hawaiian children who are gifted. Hawaii g/t advocates might urge U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye to use his position on the appropriations committee to support funding for other programs that benefit gifted students.
Title X, Part C, Homeless Education
Section 1032 amends Subtitle B of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act as follows:
Section 722(g)(4)(D) Grants for State and Local Activities:
Requires LEAs that receive funds under the McKinney Act to provide homeless children services comparable to services offered to other students in the school, including programs for gifted and talented students.
(Page 584)
Section 723(d)(2) LEA sub-grants
Permits LEAs to use funds awarded through sub-grants from the state under the McKinney Act on expedited evaluations of the strengths and needs of homeless children, including needs and eligibility for gifted and talented programs and services
(Page 588)
School administrators, teachers, and counselors should be made aware of these sections, especially since it is possible that homeless children may fall through the cracks because of frequent changes in location and enrollment.
For more information on current legislative issues related to gifted learners, visit the Legislative Update Page.
Describe and reference an administrative action:
Describe and reference a judicial action:
CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RL31830 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA): Selected Changes that Would be Made to
the Law by H.R. 1350, 108th
Congress
Updated May 2, 2003 Nancy Lee Jones Legislative Attorney American Law Division Richard N. Apling Specialist in Social Legislation Domestic and Social Policy Division The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Selected Changes that Would be Made to the Law by H.R. 1350, 108 th Congress
Summary The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes federal funding for the education of childrenwith disabilities and requires, as a condition for the receipt of such funds, the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The statute also contains detailed due process provisions to ensure the provision of FAPE. Originally enacted in 1975, the act responded to increased awareness of the need to educate children with disabilities and to judicial decisions requiring that states provide an education for children with disabilities if they provided an education for children without disabilities. IDEAhas been amended several times, most recentlyandmost comprehensively by the 1997 IDEA reauthorization, P.L. 105-17. Congress is presently examining IDEA again and H.R. 1350, 108 th Congress, passed the House on April 30, 2003.
C. Describe and reference (using any print or electronic newspaper) a national, state, and local public policy that affects your societal category. Attach the first page of the article(s) following the directions from 1.2B. (9 points)
Part C score: _
Describe and reference a national (federal) public policy:
=Standardized testing and public policy= **Standardized testing**is used as a**public policy**strategy to establish stronger accountability measures for public**education**. While the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) has served as an educational barometer for some thirty years by administering standardized tests on a regular basis to random schools throughout the United States, efforts over the last decade at the state and federal levels have mandated annual standardized test administration for all public schools across the country.
The idea behind the standardized testing policy movement is that testing is the first step to improving schools, teaching practice, and educational methods through data collection. Proponents argue that the data generated by the standardized tests act like a 'report card' for the community, demonstrating how well local schools are performing. Critics of the movement, however, point to various discrepancies that result from current state standardized testing practices, including problems with test validity and reliability and false correlations (see Simpson's paradox). Critics charge that standardized tests in fact become a mandatory curriculum placed into schools without public debate and without any accountability measures of its own. Many feel this ignores basic democratic principles in that control of schools' curricula is removed from local school boards, which are the nominal curricular authority in the U.S While some maintain that it would be preferable to simply introduce mandatory national curricula, others feel that state mandated standardized testing should stop altogether in order that schools can focus their efforts on instructing their students as they see fit. Critics also charge that standardized tests encourage "teaching to the test" at the expense of creativity and in-depth coverage of subjects not on the test. Multiple choice tests are criticised for failing to assess skills such as writing. Furthermore, student's success is being tracked to a teachers' relative performance making teacher advancement contingent upon a teacher's success with a student's academic performance. Ethical and economical questions arise for teachers when faced with clearly underperforming or underskilled students and a standardized test. See also Education, education reform, and school choice, alternative assessment
Describe and reference a state public policy (indicate which state): Florida
Funding Sponsor
The Juvenile Justice No Child Left Behind Collaboration Project is operated by the Florida State University Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research. The Project is funded through the United States Department of Justice.
About the Program
Partnership aids states in providing education and meeting NCLB requirements
A national collaboration is being developed with the goal of assisting states in implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements for juvenile justice education. By creating and maintaining partnerships and collaboration among states, this program will enable them to share information and resources that greatly improve their ability to provide effective education and meet different requirements of NCLB.
NCLB requires that states provide high quality educational services to incarcerated youth. States face many challenges in accomplishing this including lack of resources for effective program evaluation, hiring of highly qualified teachers, developing statewide data management systems, and overcoming past educational deficiencies of delinquent youths.
This project will form collaborations and build working partnerships among states. Furthermore, it will determine states' current juvenile justice education evaluation capacity, track the progress of each state's implementation of NCLB requirements, identify common problems for all states, and help to ensure that the NCLB requirements are implemented appropriately with an established consensus. The project also aims to provide technical assistance and training to the states.
A National Collaboration: Project Goals
The Juvenile Justice No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Collaboration Project is focused on facilitating collaboration nationwide for implementing the requirements of the NCLB Act as they pertain to juvenile justice education. The project's primary purpose is to develop a national agenda for research and policy as they relate to juvenile justice education and the implementation of NCLB requirements.
Project Goals
Developing a network of agencies, administrators, and evaluators responsible for juvenile justice education across the nation; and continuing to collaborate with states in building consensus regarding the implementation of NCLB
Identifying the administrative structure of states' juvenile justice education systems
Determining state's evaluation capacities in juvenile justice education
Identifying impediments to implementing NCLB requirements in juvenile justice facilities
Identifying responsive strategies and evaluation methods states are using to successfully implement NCLB requirements in their juvenile justice education systems
Assisting states in employing responsive strategies and evaluating their progress on implementing the strategies and NCLB requirements in their juvenile justice education systems
Ultimately, these goals are aimed at providing states with a forum to develop national leadership and consensus regarding the implementation of NCLB requirements and evaluation methods that will improve states' capabilities to effectively evaluate their juvenile justice education systems.
Describe and reference a local public policy (indicate which local government):
Exercise 1.3: Identifying Players and Stakeholders
Your Total Score: (Maximum: 17 points)
A. State the major difference between a “player” and a “stakeholder” by quoting directly from How You Can Help or the Maxwell Manual. (4 points)
Part A score_
Place quote:
B. Choose one of the policies you described in Exercise 1.2B or C and restate it below. Identify three different and distinct players that may be directly influencing the policy. The player must be an individual, not a group, and the player does not have to be mentioned in the article you used. Write a one sentence justification explaining what makes each of them a player. No source is needed for this exercise. (7 points)
Part B score_
Restate the Policy from Exercise 1.2B or C:
Player #1: Name:
Title:
Justification:
Player #2: Name:
Title:
Justification:
Player #3: Name:
Title:
Justification:
C. For the policy you stated in Part B, identify three different and distinct local stakeholders who are not players. Write a one sentence justification for each stakeholder stating why they are stakeholders and not players for the policy you have identified. Stakeholders do not have to be mentioned in the article you used. No source is needed for this exercise. (6 points)
Part C score
Stakeholder #1:
Justification:
Stakeholder #2:
Justification:
Stakeholder #3:
Justification:
Exercise 1.4: Identifying Players
Your Total Score: _ (Maximum: 18 points)
A. Using How You Can Help or other sources from the “Research Guide” section of the 101 web site, find a public interest/lobby organization that seeks to influence governmental policy on your societal category, and identify a player within the organization. You may want to contact this player later in the course. No source is needed for this exercise, unless you quote directly. (4 points)
Part A score:_
Write the exact name of the organizationand its geographic location:
Briefly describe one of the organization’s lobby goals:
Write the name and title of the player you could contact:
B. Using How You Can Help or other sources from the “Research Guide” section of the 101 web site, find a nonprofit organization (other than a public interest group) that provides direct assistance or raises money to deal with the societal category you have chosen, and identify a player within the organization. You may want to contact this player later in the course. No source is needed for this exercise. (4 points)
Part B score:_
Write the exact name of the organizationand its geographic location:
Write the name and title of the player you could contact:
Briefly describe a specific service provided to the organization’s clients:
C. Identify a governmental department (administrative) office at either the federal, state, or local level that has a clear role in the societal category you are studying, and identify a player within the department. You may want to contact this player later in the course. No source is needed for this exercise. (5 points)
Part C score: _
Write the exact title of the administrative office and its geographic location:
Write the name of the player in the department:
Write the e-mail address and phone number of the player:
D. Identify an elected federal, state, or local government official who is a player in the societal category you are studying. You may want to contact this player later in the course. No source is needed for this exercise. (5 points)
Part D score:
Write the exact title of the elected office:
Write the name of the elected official:
Write the e-mail address and phone number with area code of the elected official. If the official can only be emailed through a webpage, indicate this and provide the web address:
Exercise 1.5: References
Your Total Score:___ (Maximum: 10 points)
Prepare a list of references that includes all sources for this module.
Follow the APA format.
Include all sources used in the exercises.
· Start the References page on the next line or on the next page.
Your Total Score: (Maximum: 10 points)
A. Define the term “societal problem” by quoting a full sentence directly from the Maxwell Manual.
(2 points)
Part A score:
· Place quote: “A societal problem is when some aspects of our society, or, as we call it, “a societal condition,” fails to meet one or more of the six goals."
(Coplin 2007: p. 4)
B. Choose one of the following societal categories: Crime, Education, Environment, Health, Housing, Jobs and Economic Development, or Poverty. Find, reference, and attach the first page of a newspaper article from a print or electronic source that discusses some aspect of the societal category. Attach the first page of the article behind the entire 1.1 exercise. In a paragraph of no more than 200 words, explain your interest in the societal category and quote one full and relevant sentence from the article. (8 points)
Part B score: _
On New York School Tests, Warning Signs Ignored
Ruby Washington/The New York TimesA student is tested in Brooklyn. Experts had warned that the tests had become too easy.
By JENNIFER MEDINA
Published: October 10, 2010
When New York State made its standardized English and math tests tougher to pass this year, causing proficiency rates to plummet, it said it was relying on a new analysis showing that the tests had become too easy and that score inflation was rampant. But evidence had been mounting for some time that the state’s tests, which have formed the basis of almost every school reform effort of the past decade, had serious flaws.
The fast rise and even faster fall of New York’s passing rates resulted from the effect of policies, decisions and missed red flags that stretched back more than 10 years and were laid out in correspondence and in interviews with city and state education officials, administrators and testing experts.
The process involved direct warnings from experts that went unheeded by the state, and a city administration that trumpeted gains in student performance despite its own reservations about how reliably the test gauged future student success.
It involved the state’s decision to create short, predictable exams and to release them publicly soon after they were given, making coaching easy and depriving test creators of a key tool: the ability to insert in each test questions for future exams. Next year, for the first time, the tests will not be released publicly.
It involved a national push for numbers-based accountability, begun under President George W. Bush and reinforced by President Obama. And it involved a mayor’s full embrace of testing as he sought to make his mark on the city, and then to get re-elected.
“They just kept upping the stakes with the scores, putting more pressure on the schools but not really looking at what it all means,” said Pedro Noguera, an education professor at New York University who has worked with the city’s Department of Education to help improve struggling schools.
New York has been a national model for how to carry out education reform, so its sudden decline in passing rates may be seen as a cautionary tale. The turnaround has also been a blow to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and his chancellor, Joel I. Klein, who despite warnings that a laserlike focus on raising scores could make them less and less reliable, lashed almost every aspect of its school system to them. Schools were graded on how much their scores rose and threatened with being closed if they did not. The scores dictated which students were promoted or left back, and which teachers and principals would receive bonuses.
Even now, the city believes that the way it uses the tests is valid. The mayor and the chancellor have forcefully defended their students’ performance, noting that even after the changes this year, student scores are still better than they were in 2002. They have argued that their students’ progress is more important than the change in the passing rate, and that years of gains cannot be washed away because of a decision in Albany to require more correct answers from every student this year.
The test scores were even used for a new purpose this year: to help determine which teachers should receive tenure.
“This mayor uses data and metrics to determine whether policies are failing or succeeding,” said Howard Wolfson, the deputy mayor for government affairs and communications. He also helped run Mr. Bloomberg’s re-election campaign in 2009, using the city’s historic rise in test scores to make the case for a third term. “We believe that testing is a key factor for determining the success of schools and teachers.”
“Under any standard you look at,” he added, “we have improved the schools.”
But given all the flaws of the test, said Prof. Howard T. Everson of the City University of New York’s Center for Advanced Study in Education, it is hard to tell what those rising scores really meant.
“Teachers began to know what was going to be on the tests,” said Professor Everson, who was a member of a state testing advisory panel and who warned the state in 2008 that it might have a problem with score inflation. “Then you have to wonder, and folks like me wonder, is that real learning or not?”
New Generation of Tests
The problems that plagued New York’s standardized tests can be traced to the origin of the exams.
In 1996, New York set about creating tests for fourth and eighth graders as a way to measure whether schools were doing their jobs. A precursor to the widespread testing brought about by Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law, the tests replaced more basic exams that had been given in the same grades, which simply determined whether students needed remedial instruction. (The city had also given its own tests for many years.)
Teachers pushed back, saying they could gauge their students’ performance better than any mass-produced tests could. “There was a lot of resistance from throughout the education community to having the tests,” said Alan Ray, who was the chief spokesman for the State Education Department in the 1990s and in 2000, and retired this year after overseeing data for the office.
But education officials in New York, and many other states, were coming to the conclusion that some measurement system, no matter how limited, was necessary.
David Goldman for The New York Times
Randi Weingarten, second from left, president of the teachers’ union; Chancellor Joel I. Klein, center; and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg at a news conference in 2009 discussing improved math results.Exercise 1.2: Identifying Public Policy
Your Total Score: (Maximum: 20 points)
A. Define the term “public policy” by quoting directly from the Maxwell Manual.
(2 points)
Part A score: _
o Place quote:
"A public policy is an actual or proposed government action intended to deal with a given societal problem." (Coplin 2007:p.6)
B. Describe and reference (using any print or electronic newspaper) a legislative, administrative, and judicial action that relates to some aspect of your societal category. Attach the first page of each article(s) used. Articles may be used more than once at any point during this module. If an article is used more than once, place it behind the entire exercise where it is first used. (9 points)
Part B score:
- Describe and reference a legislative action:
Background Information:The No Child Left Behind Act
"Does the No Child Left Behind Act 'do' anything for gifted students?"
That is a question we hear quite often. The answer is not a simple "yes" or "no." Although the major provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) do not address the learning needs of gifted and talented students, there are several provisions in NCLB of which gifted education advocates should be aware.
First, it is important to understand that No Child Left Behind is the Bush Administration's catchy name/label for its original legislative proposal to overhaul the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was scheduled for reauthorization in 2001. ESEA is the umbrella law governing the federal government's involvement in K-12 education (note that another federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), governs K-12 education of children with disabilities). As with all legislative initiatives, the final version is a compromise between the White House and Congress. The final version of ESEA signed into law in January 2002 is still referred to as No Child Left Behind, even though it includes many provisions that were not included in the President's initial legislative proposal. One example is the Javits Act, the federal law that authorizes federal funds for research and grants to support programs and services for gifted and talented students.
**Second, although the federal legislative process, and resulting federal law is often arcane, it is helpful to understand generally how federal education law is organized on paper. Think of a filing cabinet. The top drawer is ESEA, the umbrella law for K-12 education.
**- The term 'gifted and talented', when used with respect to students, children, or youth, means students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (Title IX, Part A, Section 9101(22))
- (Page 544)
Title I Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged- Section 1111 - State Plans
- States are required to explain the method used to define "annual yearly progress" and may use a host of academic indicators, including changes in the percentage of students in gifted and talented, advanced placement, and college preparatory programs. (Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vii)).
- (Page 24)
The annual yearly progress (AYP) portion of the Act is the heart of the all-important accountability provisions. Advocates concerned about gifted children and gifted education should be asking about the criteria used for AYP in their state plan, and, to the extent that districts monitor g/t or AP data, should be asking their school districts about that too.- Section 2122: Local application and needs assessment
- An LEA application for a sub-grant from the state must include an explanation of how the LEA will provide training to enable teachers to address the needs of students with different learning styles, particularly students with disabilities, with special learning needs (including students with gifts and talents).... (Section 2122(b)(9)(A))
- (Page 210)
Advocates concerned about teacher training should ask LEAs about the applications submitted under this section, and what the LEA may/may not have included about the "special learning needs" of g/t students. Advocates might also recommend assistance and resources for teacher training.- Subpart 3 - Local Innovative Education Programs (Note: this is the local block grant section of the Act)
- Funds to LEAs shall be used for innovative assistance programs, which may include "programs to provide for the educational needs of gifted and talented children." (Section 5131(a)(7)).
- (Page 363)
LEAs receive funds under this program based on their relative student population. In some cases, the amount an LEA receives is quite small. However, g/t advocates should make sure that their local LEAs are aware that these funds may be spent to support gifted education.- Subpart 6 Gifted and Talented Education
- Sections 5461-5466 is the Javits Act, which includes
- - National Research Center on the Gifted & Talented
- - National Demonstration Grants program
- - Statewide Grants program
- (Page 409)
This section is the Javits Act, which provides funds for research and demonstration grants, and since 2002, provides funds for statewide grants to support gifted education programs and services. Each year g/t advocates urge Congress to fund this program, which is funded at $11.25 million for fiscal year 2003.- Subpart 3 National Activities
- Section 7134 is Gifted & Talented Indian Students
- (Page 510)
Part B - Native Hawaiian Education- Section 1032 amends Subtitle B of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act as follows:
- Section 722(g)(4)(D) Grants for State and Local Activities:
Requires LEAs that receive funds under the McKinney Act to provide homeless children services comparable to services offered to other students in the school, including programs for gifted and talented students.- Describe and reference a judicial action:
CRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS Web
Order Code RL31830
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA): Selected Changes that Would be Made to
the Law by H.R. 1350, 108th
Congress
Updated May 2, 2003
Nancy Lee Jones
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Richard N. Apling
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic and Social Policy Division
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):
Selected Changes that Would be Made to the Law by
H.R. 1350, 108
th Congress
Summary
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes federal
funding for the education of childrenwith disabilities and requires, as a condition for
the receipt of such funds, the provision of a free appropriate public education
(FAPE). The statute also contains detailed due process provisions to ensure the
provision of FAPE. Originally enacted in 1975, the act responded to increased
awareness of the need to educate children with disabilities and to judicial decisions
requiring that states provide an education for children with disabilities if they
provided an education for children without disabilities.
IDEAhas been amended several times, most recentlyandmost comprehensively
by the 1997 IDEA reauthorization, P.L. 105-17. Congress is presently examining
IDEA again and H.R. 1350, 108
th Congress, passed the House on April 30, 2003.
C. Describe and reference (using any print or electronic newspaper) a national, state, and local public policy that affects your societal category. Attach the first page of the article(s) following the directions from 1.2B. (9 points)
Part C score: _
- Describe and reference a national (federal) public policy:
=Standardized testing and public policy=**Standardized testing** is used as a **public policy** strategy to establish stronger accountability measures for public **education**. While the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) has served as an educational barometer for some thirty years by administering standardized tests on a regular basis to random schools throughout the United States, efforts over the last decade at the state and federal levels have mandated annual standardized test administration for all public schools across the country.
The idea behind the standardized testing policy movement is that testing is the first step to improving schools, teaching practice, and educational methods through data collection. Proponents argue that the data generated by the standardized tests act like a 'report card' for the community, demonstrating how well local schools are performing. Critics of the movement, however, point to various discrepancies that result from current state standardized testing practices, including problems with test validity and reliability and false correlations (see Simpson's paradox).
Critics charge that standardized tests in fact become a mandatory curriculum placed into schools without public debate and without any accountability measures of its own. Many feel this ignores basic democratic principles in that control of schools' curricula is removed from local school boards, which are the nominal curricular authority in the U.S While some maintain that it would be preferable to simply introduce mandatory national curricula, others feel that state mandated standardized testing should stop altogether in order that schools can focus their efforts on instructing their students as they see fit.
Critics also charge that standardized tests encourage "teaching to the test" at the expense of creativity and in-depth coverage of subjects not on the test. Multiple choice tests are criticised for failing to assess skills such as writing. Furthermore, student's success is being tracked to a teachers' relative performance making teacher advancement contingent upon a teacher's success with a student's academic performance. Ethical and economical questions arise for teachers when faced with clearly underperforming or underskilled students and a standardized test.
See also Education, education reform, and school choice, alternative assessment
Describe and reference a state public policy (indicate which state): Florida
About the Program
Partnership aids states in providing education and meeting NCLB requirements
A national collaboration is being developed with the goal of assisting states in implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements for juvenile justice education. By creating and maintaining partnerships and collaboration among states, this program will enable them to share information and resources that greatly improve their ability to provide effective education and meet different requirements of NCLB.NCLB requires that states provide high quality educational services to incarcerated youth. States face many challenges in accomplishing this including lack of resources for effective program evaluation, hiring of highly qualified teachers, developing statewide data management systems, and overcoming past educational deficiencies of delinquent youths.
This project will form collaborations and build working partnerships among states. Furthermore, it will determine states' current juvenile justice education evaluation capacity, track the progress of each state's implementation of NCLB requirements, identify common problems for all states, and help to ensure that the NCLB requirements are implemented appropriately with an established consensus. The project also aims to provide technical assistance and training to the states.
A National Collaboration: Project Goals
The Juvenile Justice No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Collaboration Project is focused on facilitating collaboration nationwide for implementing the requirements of the NCLB Act as they pertain to juvenile justice education. The project's primary purpose is to develop a national agenda for research and policy as they relate to juvenile justice education and the implementation of NCLB requirements.Project Goals
- Developing a network of agencies, administrators, and evaluators responsible for juvenile justice education across the nation; and continuing to collaborate with states in building consensus regarding the implementation of NCLB
- Identifying the administrative structure of states' juvenile justice education systems
- Determining state's evaluation capacities in juvenile justice education
- Identifying impediments to implementing NCLB requirements in juvenile justice facilities
- Identifying responsive strategies and evaluation methods states are using to successfully implement NCLB requirements in their juvenile justice education systems
- Assisting states in employing responsive strategies and evaluating their progress on implementing the strategies and NCLB requirements in their juvenile justice education systems
Ultimately, these goals are aimed at providing states with a forum to develop national leadership and consensus regarding the implementation of NCLB requirements and evaluation methods that will improve states' capabilities to effectively evaluate their juvenile justice education systems.